Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 9

This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.

Chapter 8: The Book of Mormon

A FAIR Analysis of: Criticism of Mormonism/Books A work by author: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson

Chapter 10: The Atonement

Index of Claims in Chapter 9: The Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price

The Doctrine and Covenants: A Modern Day Revelation?

123-125

The authors provide an overview of what is found in the Doctrine and Covenants. This overview is generally correct.

Claim

• D&C 84 "predicts" the establishment of Zion and the construction of a temple in Independence, Missouri.

Author's source(s)

• DC 84꞉4-5
• Orson Pratt n6
• Lorenzo Snow n7
• Joseph Fielding Smith n8

Response

• There are two objections the authors give as to why they disregard section 84 as prophecy. First, is the term "this generation," and second is the fact that the Saints were forced out of the area, which, according to critics in general, indicates establishing Zion at that time and building the temple was not really God-ordained and thus it is a false prophecy. There are major flaws with both of these conclusions.
• For a detailed response, see: Joseph Smith/Prophecies/Independence temple to be built "in this generation" and Joseph Smith/Prophecies/Saints left Missouri before temple was built  ^{[needs work]}

Claim

• The authors claim that the "prophetic failures" regarding the establishment of Zion and the return of Christ are the reason for Sidney Rigdon's loss of faith in Joseph Smith.

Author's source(s)

• Van Wagoner n9

Response

• Actually, Sidney Rigdon became disassociated with the church when he was not chosen to be the leader after the murder of Joseph and Hyrum. Since Joseph Smith made no false prophecies, it had nothing to do Joseph Smith's "prophetic failures." In addition, critics such as the authors ignore the statements Joseph Smith made concerning the Saints being driven out of Missouri, going to the Rocky Mountains, and that the Center Place of Zion (Missouri) would not be settled until another time.

Claim

• According to the authors, D&C 87, the "revelation and prophecy on war" has "numerous flaws." The authors state,

It should be noted that Smith's prediction was not all that unique. One month prior to the alleged revelation, the newspaper Painesville Telegraph printed a story in which it predicted the secession of South Carolina and an eventual War Between the States. South Carolina had been making such threats for some time, and many felt it was only a matter of time before South Carolina would act on its threat.

Response

• The authors biggest concern seems to be that rumors of war were around during the time Joseph Smith made the Civil War Prophecy, and in their minds, this invalidates the prophecy.
• The authors are correct that there was a threat of rebellion in South Carolina at the time of this revelation. But the rebellion never materialized the way in which the rumors indicated, and the threat ended shortly afterwards. After the threat was ended, Joseph Smith never retracted this prophecy, showing he still expected it to be fulfilled, and he was correct. The revelation containing the prophecy was given on December 25, 1832. The first shot fired in the American Civil War was fired on April 12, 1861. Hence, the prediction preceded the war by 28 years. Ten years before the war began, the prophecy was published in England and circulated both in that country and in the United States. There can be no question, therefore, as to the prophecy preceding the event.

• For a detailed response, see: Joseph Smith/Prophecies/Civil War

The Pearl of Great Price

128-129

The history of the Pearl of Great Price given by the authors is correct.

The History of the Book of Abraham

129

The authors' recounting of the history of the Book of Abraham appears to be correct.

Claim

• The authors state,

The fact that Joseph Smith was not an expert in hieroglyphics has led some LDS scholars to speculate that he translated the manuscript by divine inspiration.

Response

• Joseph didn't know how to translate Egyptian. He had no other choice but to translate the Book of Abraham by divine inspiration, and LDS scholars were not "led" to that conclusion.
• For a detailed response, see: Book of Abraham/Papyri/Long article

Claim

• Joseph Smith's interpretation of the facsimile #2 associated with the Joseph Smith papyri was determined to be incorrect by Egyptologists.

Author's source(s)

• Parker n17
• Thompson n19
• n20

Response

• For a detailed response, see: Book of Abraham/Papyri/Long article

Claim

• The authors note that "vast evidence" claims that Joseph Smith didn't know how to translate Egyptian, and that LDS apologists have tried to "raise doubts" about the Joseph Smith papyri.

Author's source(s)

• Peterson n21
• Larson n22
• Roberts n23

Response
 FAIR WIKI EDITORS: Check sources

Claim

• The authors claim that if Joseph couldn't translate the Egyptian on the papyri, then he couldn't have translated the "Reformed Egyptian" on the gold plates.

Response

• Note that it should be "reformed Egyptian," rather than "Reformed Egyptian."
• Joseph translated the plates by the "gift and power of God." He had no ability to "translate" the "reformed Egyptian" in a manner which would have been used by men.
• For a detailed response, see: Book of Mormon/Translation

Claim

• The authors claim that the discovery of the papyri "puts serious doubt on Smith's translating ability and his claim to being a prophet."

Response

• If this is such an issue, why did the Church feature the recently discovered papyri in the January 1968 Ensign with an article that described it as being an Egyptian funerary document?
• For a detailed response, see: Book of Abraham/Book of the Dead

Claim

• The authors' point in their charge, is that if God was behind the revelation in D&C 84, then the Mormons could not have been driven out of Missouri by men.

Response

• For a detailed response, see: Joseph Smith/Prophecies/Saints left Missouri before temple was built

Claim

• The authors note that Great Britain never had to "call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations."

Response

• Nowhere does the prophecy state that other nations will fight for the Southern States, only that the Southern States would call upon other nations. There is no statement of the results of the "call." The Confederacy did in fact, call upon Great Britain and France. This is a matter of historic record. This came true, no matter how you look at it. The authors are making assumptions based upon statements never made, something common among critics. In other words, they are trying to claim a false prophecy based upon what was not said.
• For a detailed response, see: Joseph Smith/Prophecies/Civil War

Claim

• The authors claim,

While Smith's prediction was published in the Pearl of Great Price in 1851, the Pearl of Great Price did not become a part of the standard works until 1880. Smith's prophecy on war did not become a part of the D&C until 1876, more than a decade after the Civil war had ended. (12 Encyclopedia of Mormonism "Civil War Prophecy.")

Author's source(s)

• n12

Response

• Without coming out and directly saying so, the authors are attempting to give the impression that the church withheld this prophecy from the public until after the Civil war was over. The prophecy was not "shelved" as as the authors insinuate here. There was no attempt to cover up the revelation as the authors are attempting to allude.
• Section 87 was not published by the Church until 1851 and was not canonized until 1876. It was, however, copied and circulated by some Church leaders and missionaries in the 1830s. The Civil War prophecy became one of the most widely published revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. Not surprisingly, it received greatest attention during the Civil War, as many viewed the conflict as a vindication of the prophetic powers of Joseph Smith. ^[1]
• Notice that this quote comes from the very same source the authors used. The authors use partial evidence, instead of the full account.
• Brigham Young explained why D&C 87 was intentionally left out of the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.

It was not wisdom to publish it to the world, and it remained in the private escritoire. Brother Joseph had that revelation concerning this nation at a time when the brethren were reflecting and reasoning with regard to African slavery on this continent, and the slavery of the children of men throughout the world. There are other revelations, besides this one, not yet published to the world. In the due time of the Lord, the Saints and the world will be privileged with the revelations that are due to them. They now have many more than they are worthy of, for they do not observe them. ^[2]

Claim

• The authors claim,

D&C 87:8 says the day of the Lord would come quickly, and many LDS leaders preached sermons during the Civil War anticipating the desolation of the United States. When that did not happen, Smith's prophecy on war was given a broader interpretation.

Author's source(s)

• Talmage n10
• Benson n11

Response

• There are three points to this statement.

1. The prophecy was given a broader interpretation. On the contrary, it is the authors, along with other critics, who "restrict" the interpretation of prophecy. Ignoring evidence, taking quotes out of context, dismissing LDS beliefs and history, and a refusal to be honest about the evidence metes out this restriction. Latter-day Saints have always had the same interpretation of these events, as the quotes used by the authors indicate.
2. The day of the Lord would come quickly. Here again, the authors repeat their double standard. If Joseph Smith is a false prophet for so stating, then so are the New Testament writers. "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3꞉8 Who are we to judge the Lord's timing? His time is not our time. Joseph Smith never gave a time for the second coming. His words in this section of the Doctrine and Covenants are very much in accordance with Biblical prophecies and teachings in this regard. The Lord was only repeating to Joseph Smith what He had said before.
3. The desolation of the United States did not take place. The casualties from the Civil War have been shown. But what does this have to do with the prophecy in question? The word "desolation" is not in the prophecy, neither is the term "United States." In fact, the revelation only makes reference to "the inhabitants of the earth," not the United States, when it speaks of destruction or suffering. Again, the authors are attempting to discredit this prophecy based upon words never uttered.

• However, there was desolation in the United States. Any student of American history is aware of that. The bloodiest war the United States ever went through, even to this day, was the Civil War. Natural disasters most certainly have occurred, and continue to do so. There was, besides the bloodshed of the Civil War, disease, and disasters.
• The "plague," or Asiatic cholera, which first broke out in India, spread also throughout the United States in that same year. One historian, speaking of its ravages in the United States, says: "It was on the 21st of June, 1832, that the eastern plague, known as the Asiatic cholera, made its first appearance in the United states, in the city of New York. Its rapid spread produced universal panic, though it was less fatal in the South Atlantic states than in the north and in the valley of the Mississippi. Thousands of persons of all ages and conditions died of it within a few months. The most robust constitutions in many instances became victims of its malignancy within thirty-six hours from it first attack." (History U. S., Stephens, p. 450) ^[3]
• Natural disasters have taken their toll upon America as well. Since, as usual with critics being only partially forthcoming with evidence and documentation, the authors took their comment about "desolation" out of context and did not mention that when the early leaders of the church spoke about "desolation," they were usually speaking in reference to the redress of wrongs against the members of the church in Missouri.
• How was Missouri affected by the Civil War? In 1861, the first year of the war, of the 157 engagements and battles listed in the Army Register, 66 were in Missouri (over 42%). Missouri saw more action than VA and WV combined in 1861. ^[4] Speaking of the situation in Missouri in 1861, the outgoing governor, Robert M. Stewart, in his address to the legislature, and referring to Missouri and her right to be heard on the slavery question, said:

Missouri has a right to speak on this subject, because she has suffered. Bounded on three sides by free territory, her border counties have been the frequent scenes of kidnapping and violence, and this state has probably lost as much, in the last two years, in the abduction of slaves, as all the rest of the southern states. At this moment several of the western counties are desolated, and almost depopulated, from fear of a bandit horde, who have been committing depredations--arson, theft, and foul murder--upon the adjacent border. ^[5]

Endnotes

1. [note] Paul H. Peterson, "Civil War Prophecy," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992), 1:288.
2. [note] Brigham Young, "Privileges of the Sabbath, Etc.," (20 May 1860) Journal of Discourses 8:58.

.

1. [note] Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 1 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1978), 312, footnotes.
2. [note] http://www.usmo.com/~momollus/battles.htm
3. [note] Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 3 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1978), LXIII.